Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Most Atheists can't answer this question...

bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:08:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?
Religion!
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:08:19 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?
Religion!

Please elaborate. I'm trying to be serious.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:10:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

There is no such thing as "proof" within the context you've provided. "Proof" accurately applies only to maths and alcohol. But the evidence to support disbelief in gods is exactly the same as that to support disbelief in fairies, Leprechauns, mermaids, gremlins and all other imaginary entities - the complete lack of evidence for them!

The lack of evidence for is very strong evidence, though not conclusive. In the case of a God who is claimed to answer prayers and affect the physical, the lack of evidence is conclusive. God cannot exist, answer prayers, affect the physical and yet provide no statistical variation in outcome between prayer and non-prayer, and a complete lack of physical evidence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:14:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

The fact that the alternative would be absurd. An omnipotent God would either have to be restrained by logic, which would make him non-omnipotent and thus a contradiction in terms, or outside of logic, which would make him illogical (I.e. not real).
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:17:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

It's impossible to prove a negative, and there's no specific proof or evidence that I could present that couldn't be countered with a redefining of 'God'. That's why I would describe myself as an practical atheist, or 'apatheist'. I don't have the evidence to justify a leap of faith, and I don't care to make one without said evidence.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:20:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not an atheist, but the most reasonable response would probably be lack of belief due to lack of evidence.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:24:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:17:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

It's impossible to prove a negative, and there's no specific proof or evidence that I could present that couldn't be countered with a redefining of 'God'. That's why I would describe myself as an practical atheist, or 'apatheist'. I don't have the evidence to justify a leap of faith, and I don't care to make one without said evidence.

If your opponent redefined God, then that just means that they abandon their original position. I don't see how that's a defence rather than an act of evasion.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:25:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

The lack of evidence of a god supports atheism. In the same way the lack of evidence supports the disbelief in fairies, goblins, and whatnot.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:26:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:24:42 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:17:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

It's impossible to prove a negative, and there's no specific proof or evidence that I could present that couldn't be countered with a redefining of 'God'. That's why I would describe myself as an practical atheist, or 'apatheist'. I don't have the evidence to justify a leap of faith, and I don't care to make one without said evidence.

If your opponent redefined God, then that just means that they abandon their original position. I don't see how that's a defence rather than an act of evasion.

Also, if you can't prove a negative, then doesn't that mean that the statement "It is not true that a does not equal a" is indefensible? I mean, by definition, "a is not a" and be shown to be false...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:28:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:24:42 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:17:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

It's impossible to prove a negative, and there's no specific proof or evidence that I could present that couldn't be countered with a redefining of 'God'. That's why I would describe myself as an practical atheist, or 'apatheist'. I don't have the evidence to justify a leap of faith, and I don't care to make one without said evidence.

If your opponent redefined God, then that just means that they abandon their original position. I don't see how that's a defence rather than an act of evasion.

It's because of the problem addressed by ignosticism: that 'God' is a word with so many different definitions that before you address the question of whether or not God exists, the term must be defined and any arguments must be tailored to that definition.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:30:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:28:17 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:24:42 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:17:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

It's impossible to prove a negative, and there's no specific proof or evidence that I could present that couldn't be countered with a redefining of 'God'. That's why I would describe myself as an practical atheist, or 'apatheist'. I don't have the evidence to justify a leap of faith, and I don't care to make one without said evidence.

If your opponent redefined God, then that just means that they abandon their original position. I don't see how that's a defence rather than an act of evasion.

It's because of the problem addressed by ignosticism: that 'God' is a word with so many different definitions that before you address the question of whether or not God exists, the term must be defined and any arguments must be tailored to that definition.

Right, sure, but that's the same for anything. Once you have defined God, though, what's stopping you from arguing against that particular conception of God?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:14:33 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

The fact that the alternative would be absurd. An omnipotent God would either have to be restrained by logic, which would make him non-omnipotent and thus a contradiction in terms, or outside of logic, which would make him illogical (I.e. not real).

Only according to some definitions of omnipotence.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:30:07 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:28:17 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:24:42 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:17:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

It's impossible to prove a negative, and there's no specific proof or evidence that I could present that couldn't be countered with a redefining of 'God'. That's why I would describe myself as an practical atheist, or 'apatheist'. I don't have the evidence to justify a leap of faith, and I don't care to make one without said evidence.

If your opponent redefined God, then that just means that they abandon their original position. I don't see how that's a defence rather than an act of evasion.

It's because of the problem addressed by ignosticism: that 'God' is a word with so many different definitions that before you address the question of whether or not God exists, the term must be defined and any arguments must be tailored to that definition.

Right, sure, but that's the same for anything. Once you have defined God, though, what's stopping you from arguing against that particular conception of God?

Nothing, of course. But you'd have to eliminate every possible conception of god to prove general atheism. You'd have to win an innumerable amount of battles to win the war, so to speak. It'd be an impossible task.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:36:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:26:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:24:42 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:17:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

It's impossible to prove a negative, and there's no specific proof or evidence that I could present that couldn't be countered with a redefining of 'God'. That's why I would describe myself as an practical atheist, or 'apatheist'. I don't have the evidence to justify a leap of faith, and I don't care to make one without said evidence.

If your opponent redefined God, then that just means that they abandon their original position. I don't see how that's a defence rather than an act of evasion.

Also, if you can't prove a negative, then doesn't that mean that the statement "It is not true that a does not equal a" is indefensible? I mean, by definition, "a is not a" and be shown to be false...

Eh, I worded that colloquially, and a bit sloppily so to boot. What I should have said is that it's impossible to find evidence of absence.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:37:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No atheists can answer the question, not most atheists. Skep is about as reasonable as they come.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:40:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

Atheism is a lack of belief and beliefs are often inaccurate and incorrect. Instead, an atheist understands, which is more correct and accurate.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:47:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:37:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
No atheists can answer the question, not most atheists. Skep is about as reasonable as they come.

Atheists have already answered the question in this thread.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:50:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most atheists don't claim to have proof for the nonexistence of God. Either they define atheism as the lack of belief in God (which obviously don't require proof), or they reject God on the basis of lack of evidence or some supposedly contradictory aspect of God.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:52:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:47:29 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:37:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
No atheists can answer the question, not most atheists. Skep is about as reasonable as they come.

Atheists have already answered the question in this thread.

No they haven't, they've simply tried to reduce the notion of God to absurdity by associating it with other things, which is utterly delusional. There is only pragmatism. Eerie that the logically insensible would sing songs of God, in my opinion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:55:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:52:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Eerie that the logically insensible would sing songs of God, in my opinion.

Please explain what this means.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 10:58:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:55:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:52:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Eerie that the logically insensible would sing songs of God, in my opinion.

Please explain what this means.

Well, ... cause and effect doesn't cut it, right? So, we're left with some sort of insensible eternal either way. And here it is singing songs of God.

Coincidence??? It's my own personal rendition of the fine-tuning argument.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:01:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And most atheists deny the existence of a God, not state lack of belief; let's not fool ourselves here.

.....And yet here they are stuck in the middle of the magnificently divine with the rest of us, like it's no big thing.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:01:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:58:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:55:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:52:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Eerie that the logically insensible would sing songs of God, in my opinion.

Please explain what this means.

Well, ... cause and effect doesn't cut it, right? So, we're left with some sort of insensible eternal either way. And here it is singing songs of God.

Coincidence??? It's my own personal rendition of the fine-tuning argument.

Okay, but I still don't know what "sing songs of God" means.

lol
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:02:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:01:21 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And most atheists deny the existence of a God, not state lack of belief; let's not fool ourselves here.


Not in my experience. Not even close. I mean, even Richard Dawkins falls in the latter camp.

.....And yet here they are stuck in the middle of the magnificently divine with the rest of us, like it's no big thing.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:04:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:01:22 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:58:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:55:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:52:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Eerie that the logically insensible would sing songs of God, in my opinion.

Please explain what this means.

Well, ... cause and effect doesn't cut it, right? So, we're left with some sort of insensible eternal either way. And here it is singing songs of God.

Coincidence??? It's my own personal rendition of the fine-tuning argument.

Okay, but I still don't know what "sing songs of God" means.

lol

It's the idea of God resounding through our existence in something such as this. I mean, if that doesn't give you pause, then you're ridiculous. And you can argue bias or whatever, but still.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:04:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:52:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:47:29 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:37:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
No atheists can answer the question, not most atheists. Skep is about as reasonable as they come.

Atheists have already answered the question in this thread.

No they haven't, they've simply tried to reduce the notion of God to absurdity by associating it with other things, which is utterly delusional. There is only pragmatism. Eerie that the logically insensible would sing songs of God, in my opinion.

So where is the delusion in the following scenarios?

Bob says fairies exist on Jupiter. He presents no objective evidence that science can test. Therefore, people disbelief or reject his claim of fairies existing on Jupiter.

Bob says there is an almighty God. He presents no objective evidence that science can test. Therefore, people disbelief or reject his claim of an almighty God existing.

How is that delusional? Please explain.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:04:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:02:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 11:01:21 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And most atheists deny the existence of a God, not state lack of belief; let's not fool ourselves here.


Not in my experience. Not even close. I mean, even Richard Dawkins falls in the latter camp.

Read this thread.

.....And yet here they are stuck in the middle of the magnificently divine with the rest of us, like it's no big thing.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:05:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 11:04:22 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/4/2015 11:02:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 11:01:21 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And most atheists deny the existence of a God, not state lack of belief; let's not fool ourselves here.


Not in my experience. Not even close. I mean, even Richard Dawkins falls in the latter camp.

Read this thread.

.....And yet here they are stuck in the middle of the magnificently divine with the rest of us, like it's no big thing.

It's like tied :P
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:05:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 10:34:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:14:33 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 1/4/2015 10:02:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:
What is your proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct?

The fact that the alternative would be absurd. An omnipotent God would either have to be restrained by logic, which would make him non-omnipotent and thus a contradiction in terms, or outside of logic, which would make him illogical (I.e. not real).

Only according to some definitions of omnipotence.

I'm using the common definition of an omnipotent being being "all-powerful".
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush